ND, how can you read McGough's quote and then jump to this conclusion? It almost seems like you are contradicting him. Notice he said Ronnie was "a good seven pounds heavier." He didn't say Ronnie was a bad seven pounds heavier. He also goes on to say Ronnie was the clear winner in 99. This, along with the other quote where he rates Ronnie's 99 Mr. Olympia physique over 98, corroborates what Hulkster is saying. The only criticism from McGough is that Ronnie lost a little conditioning but his added quality size made up for this

Easily. when people say a ' good ' seven pounds it's a guestimation not an affirmation. He was roughly seven pounds heavier than the previous year.

I have no problems with Ronnie being the clear winner , just pointing out it's not his best showing more specifically because his conditioning wasn't on par with the previous year or like in 2001 . Hulkster is still clinging to his notion that 99 is his best ever ( because he likes it ) and it's not and why? his conditioning wasn't there , Ronnie admitted this

ND, if McGough felt that 98 was better than 99, where was 98 in his list of greatest mr. O physiques ever?

answer: it wasn't on the list because Ronnie 98 was not as good as Ronnie 99. period.

end of story.

his 2001 AC performance has nothing to do with this fact.

even then, its very debatable whether or not his 2001 AC physique was better than his 99 one (98 isn't even in the picture - its between 2001 AC vs. 99 olympia for his best ever shapes - according to Peter McGough your hero anyway) because his gut was much more pronounced at the AC:

Easily. when people say a ' good ' seven pounds it's a guestimation not an affirmation. He was roughly seven pounds heavier than the previous year.

normally, I would agree but Hulkster's interpretation is corroborated by McGough saying Ronnie was the clear winner in 99 and another quote where he rates Ronnie's physique in 99 over his 98 showing. There is nothing to substantiate your interpretation that 98 was better other than speculation.

Quote

I have no problems with Ronnie being the clear winner , just pointing out it's not his best showing more specifically because his conditioning wasn't on par with the previous year or like in 2001 . Hulkster is still clinging to his notion that 99 is his best ever ( because he likes it ) and it's not and why? his conditioning wasn't there , Ronnie admitted this

I think Ronnie was sharper in 98 and 01. However, he was fuller in 99. It comes down to personal preference.

In 1998 his condition was better than 1999. However in 1999 he dominated in size which he didn't do in 1998 and his condition was fucking close. Even if he dropped down to 248 in 1999 he might not have looked the same as in 1998 he might have looked worse. Get bigger and things change.

normally, I would agree but Hulkster's interpretation is corroborated by McGough saying Ronnie was the clear winner in 99 and another quote where he rates Ronnie's physique in 99 over his 98 showing. There is nothing to substantiate your interpretation that 98 was better other than speculation.

I think Ronnie was sharper in 98 and 01. However, he was fuller in 99. It comes down to personal preference.

Quote

normally, I would agree but Hulkster's interpretation is corroborated by McGough saying Ronnie was the clear winner in 99 and another quote where he rates Ronnie's physique in 99 over his 98 showing. There is nothing to substantiate your interpretation that 98 was better other than speculation.

I don't think I ever claimed he was better in 1998 per sa just his conditioning

Quote

I think Ronnie was sharper in 98 and 01. However, he was fuller in 99. It comes down to personal preference.

No , it comes down to criteria. It's better to be fuller and sharper at the same time , a feat Ronnie couldn't duplicate in 1999 , he came in fuller at the expense of that bone dry and rock hard conditioning from 1998.

There is a very good reason most experts agree 1998 or 2001 is his best showing.

Looks like a sculpture, it's a shame that physiques like this never really got their dues.

Quote

Exactly, especially experienced intelligent users like flex and kevin, they used seo's for a long time. So did nasser

Seo looks good when its used properly to supplement an already big muscle, like in flex's case, his arms and delts were big, in someone like milos, its blatantly obvious.

Nasser could pull it off when he was at his peak, later, it became a game of catch-up, less muscle, more oil.

Oil, unless used by the idiots we see on the internet just injecting all over looks stupid and fake, like that Mo guy with the 31" arms. Used by proper experts, injected deep and multiple small injections, like flex and kev, its not perceptible.

Spot on. Pro's use it to enhance a muscle from within, The plebs on the street just randomly inject it without any thought other than having the biggest arm possible.

You won't find a better top 5 in an Olympia. The 1999 top 5 will beat any other top 5 in any other show. Ron, Flex, Cormier, Levrone, Ray and look at the top 3. This top 3 is better than 1993 Mr. O top 3 of Yates, 93 Flex and 93 Ray vs. 99 Ron, 99 Flex and 99 Cormier.

93 kills 98 big time, not even close. Yates smokes Ronnie, Flex was way better in 93 and Ray looked about the same. 94 kills 98 too, Levrone looked insane and so did Dillet.